Nixon, Powell & Timmons on Supreme Court nomination and pension reform

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Show Eric I'm getting tired of this shit.

We're going to watch you.

I'm going to go to the war now.

Come on, let's get this deal done.

It's time to get more documents.

Are you going to report to the Senate today?

Senator Todd and the others are trying to get an answer to the Senate agreement to go along with it.

They've been unable to get an answer to the Senate agreement.

They're going to try at this moment to try to work it out.

What is the, uh, do you know where Paul is?

I don't know.

Get Mr. Lewis Paul if you can, uh, you know, get him to confirm these suggestions.

What about the, uh, the, uh...

on a tax check-off, you know, I think it's best not to go to the, trying to get another vote today, the reason I'm here is very important, though, that you agree with that.

I'm not going to say we've got to move on it that way.

Thirdly, I spoke to Connie about it, and Connie agrees, and so we'll, I have other ways to have a tax check-off.

There's several avenues, and you thought, sure, the appropriation next year, the idea is whether we'll have a chance to

that we'll have a chance to knock out without having to leave those attacks below the knee, which is not what you may have thought.

Now, most importantly, most importantly, they've got to go with the appropriation through our House.

So they have a rule today, we have a point of order, and it'll be on the House floor tomorrow.

And then it'll go full, because, you know, it's an automatic.

And then it'll be sent to the Senate, sent to the League, and we just don't know what to do with that.

The Senate might not take up the opportunity.

How can it?

Well, I think they won't have a hearing.

They won't have a hearing, sir.

They tried to market it in the Senate, but they didn't go to the House of Representatives.

They refused to take action.

The Senate appropriated it.

The House of Representatives.

He feels that's an overrun, and it's one of the reasons he's in the conference.

So we're coming up to a consultation on the second edition of the meeting.

And what are your prospects in the future for the department's learning?

I think there's a possibility.

I talked to Jerry Fortigan today on the appropriations.

And he feels that once it goes to the Senate, they'll reconsider if they cut the appropriations.

And all our position is that they'll do that when we pass the continuing resolution.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

They'll look at that.

The continuing resolution is a fallback.

It's not something we can't just do alone.

Yeah, we'll take it up with you.

There's nothing more we can do on it.

Well, it's in their hands.

It's in their hands.

Hello?

Well, you got a very close confirmation.

That's right.

And it's not going to be one of those that isn't going to run.

So next time.

So I think you came through with great style.

And I'm delighted.

And the country is very pleased that you have been confirmed.

And I'll serve the court.

And it will be a distinguished appointment.

We're very proud of you.

Uh, he'll get confirmed.

He's a good man.

Yeah.

I think we'll have 30, 35 votes against him, but, uh, you know, after it's all over with, years later, they will forget whether Powell was about to have 30 votes against him or running with it, you know?

Sure.

Well, you know, years ago, when I was, uh, in law school, I recall, uh, you know, reading the famous poem, The Brandeis Descent.

And I once read a little story about it.

Tremendous fight for branch office, you remember, to the court.

But most, I'll weigh in on most lawsuits today when you remember there was a fight.

It was way back in the period between 1910 and 1820.

All right.

Now.

Sure.

I see you.

All right, here we go.

He felt that was a good time to hit him.

Right.

Yeah.

Honesty.

Sure.

Well, whatever.

Whatever you were about to choose, of course, was fine.

Mr. President, there's one remaining decision for you to make before we send your pension legislation up to the Hill on Wednesday.

As you know, half of the workforce is covered by some kind of pension plan.

But half of the workforce has no pension retirement system at all.

The non-governmental, non-agricultural.

These people, you've determined, ought to have an opportunity to do something for themselves.

And you want to give them encouragement in that.

So you've determined that they deserve the right to take a deduction for their own contributions to their own retirement.

There are two options here.

In the first place, we could give them $1,000, and that would limit the revenue loss to $300 million a year, but it would only provide a guy who puts this up for 20 years with a pension of $3,200 a year.

The other option is to give them the right to contribute up to $1,500 a year and take a deduction.

That would up the revenue loss to $430 million.

But for a fellow who's contributed $1,500 for 20 years, he'd have a pension of $4,700 a year.

And if he did it for 25 years, he'd have a pension of $7,500 a year.

Treasury thinks that there ought to be only a $1,000 deduction.

The Departments of Commerce, Department of Labor, OMB, and I think you ought to make it $1,500 as the limit to the deduction.

That's the problem.

Well, the Treasury position, I think, is on Treasury.

Is that there?

Yes, sir.

That's where it is.

He goes for the $1,500.

He goes for the $400 million.

Yes, he does.

Exactly.

Uh, as far as Treasury is concerned, you're not going to either burn the economy or be involved in this one because the Treasury, uh, position is developing a policy of bureaucracy, right?

That's right.

Assistant Secretary, now.

My guess is it's not going to be for the better.

But I think that it has to be improved at the higher levels, because I thought for a long time that we ought to encourage people who are not on pensions, because they have the misfortune maybe to work with a better military industry that has pension plans, to purchase their own plans.

I remember that was with Tom Dooley.

We may have been talking about it years ago.

Sometimes we've got to do something for the people who don't work for the government and therefore do not have the self-employed.

the individuals who are in small business and the rest, so that they can have the opportunity to get the same protection.

The only way to do it is through tax deduction or tax credit, in this case, might be.

So this moves in the right direction.

It's just a principle.

The government should help those who help themselves.

And what we're doing is to help people to help themselves in some ways.

How does this work?

I wish you could do it for 300 days.

Mr. Connelly, I don't think they should have taken that position.

I think from the treasurer's standpoint, they should always take the position that is at the least budgetary implication.

But I'm sure that he will see that on merits that we ought to move in this other direction.

And so, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Nixon, Powell & Timmons on Supreme Court nomination and pension reform

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on December 6, 1971

Cite this conversation